Quote:
Originally Posted by tbpew
so let me try to get the criteria for the comparative consideration this thread is proposing:
some are looking to the GS of a member-minister fellowship organization to stand on the front of the boat (bow?) and chart the course of the faithful 'rowers' behind him.
To expect that role for the GS, one would have to move from fellowship with a member-minister organization to a denomination.
IMO, a cooperative among independant agents is the overarching character of a member-minister fellowship. Why do we long for (or place our hopes in) something other than what we have chosen to continue to be a part of?
We either are denominal or we are not.
I believe Nathanial Urshan did not assert his views as any form of central governance, and certainly not as requirements for continued fellowship. The premise was established before him and he provided a point of continuity with "them that are without". His stature was as statesman; his family name was viewed as among the pioneers of "searching the spirit for life choices established in relationship with God"
Haney will do and is doing a very similar role within a set of organizational behaviors established within a framework of a member-minister fellowship.
If we want to raise up/anoint a king, or some very, very, special man, it will be paid for by what we give up in our individual calling and election in Christ.
If you want central vision commanding the forward advancement of the troops, join a denomination, engage the political machine, pay your dues and wait for your big chance.
|
What? Are you kidding me? You need to go to the UPC website and order Brother Urshan's 1992 GC sermon.
I don't have the time to fully agree with you, I am going to have to come back in a while and do it in detail...
Threaded Mode
